The research-mapping was designed to (1) determine existing published research and gaps in current research and (2) identify emerging research priorities based on these gaps (data collection completed in May 2021). The consortium members who were leading this phase (Figure 1) applied diverse knowledge and interdisciplinary understanding to question the group’s situated knowledge of disability. These multiple perspectives were important for the relevance of the review approach and to be inclusive of all forms of knowledge to ensure that all views, including nondominant and traditionally excluded views, were heard.

A specified aim of the research agenda was to update the previous audits of disability research with research conducted between 2018 and 2020. The original audits used a conceptual framework based on 8 domains of everyday life for people with disability: (1) community and civic participation; (2) economic participation; (3) education; (4) health and well-being; (5) housing and the built environment; (6) safety and security; (7) social relationships; and (8) transport and communication [3,4]. These domains were used to restrict the search into these 8 categories and then as a structure for narrative analysis. In the current mapping process, we did away with these domains as limiters in the search terms, as we felt it would restrict the breadth of disability research, we were able to include in our reporting.

To locate research in peer-reviewed journal articles and books, we systematically searched multiple scientific databases: AMED, Avery, CINAHL, Compendex, Embase, ERIC, Global Health, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science Core Collection, and Informit (which includes the following databases: A+Education, Ausport, Families & Society Collection, Humanities & Social Sciences Collection, Literature & Culture Collection, Indigenous Australia, AGIS, FAMILY, APAIS, AMI, AusSportMed, Health & Society Collection, Health Collection, RURAL, Transport Index, ALISA, BUILD, ENGINE, and ARCH). This approach was developed with the assistance of a university librarian with experience in systematic reviews. An example of the search strategy adapted to multiple databases is presented in Textbox 1.

To identify research from public reports (sometimes called gray literature), web-based searches using the Google Australia internet search engine were systematically made. A base search string was used, and Australia* disability research filetype:pdf was adapted to the relevant search terms. We undertook a search for partner organizations and other key websites. Any reports that did not contain original data (eg, how to guidelines and policy submissions) were excluded from the mapping.

The integrative review identified qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies with no limit on study design, data collection methods used, or study quality using the following criteria.

The titles and abstracts of all studies generated through the combined database searches were uploaded to the systematic review software Covidence, and duplicates were removed. We used Microsoft Excel to manage research reports. Two team members independently screened all search results against the eligibility criteria in both the abstract and full-text screening phases. Conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer.

The initial list of all relevant papers and reports identified were sent to a large range of disability researchers, NGO partners, and government agencies to identify any papers missed from the search. The list of papers was sent out via the existing networks of consortium members and project advisory groups. Those who received the list were encouraged to send it through their own networks. Any additional papers that were identified were screened according to the method described earlier.

The data extraction task has been shared by multiple members of the research-mapping team based on a standardized data extraction form. The extracted information included the title, year of publication, abstract, study population, focal group of participants, main type of disability being discussed, age group, aim of the paper, topic, primary focus, secondary focus, study design, further details, and study funding sources (Multimedia Appendix 1). These areas were developed collaboratively by the project team to ensure the mapping of key dimensions of disability research in Australia.

The extracted data were then analyzed, integrated, synthesized, and presented both quantitatively (number of papers, domain, age, disability group focus, and study design or type of research) and qualitatively. Narrative synthesis involved identifying (1) main topics within individual studies and synthesizing these across studies, (2) collective limitations of the research scope and methods used (eg, an absence of lived experience-led studies) and knowledge gaps across the studies, and (3) directions for future research across the studies.

The 3 main principles underpinning consultation are inclusion, flexibility, and self-determination. These interlinked principles underpin choices made concerning research methods and their application. It is important to ensure that there are no barriers to participation in the consultation, and this demands flexibility in the approaches used. This includes seeking broad feedback and providing methods and resources that enable people to participate by accommodating their communication and information access needs. Thus, a multi-pronged, multi-stage, multi-platform consultation process has been designed. Nongovernment disabled people’s organizations and advocacy organizations have the best knowledge about their members and, therefore, how to consult with them. Therefore, a consultation toolkit has been designed for use by organizations conducting their own tailored consultations, with resourcing or research support from the consortium as needed. The final approach to consultation by organizations is determined by the communication preferences and styles of their members, using the consultation toolkit.

Three main routes of consultation will be used and adapted as needed in different situations.

The consultation has been designed to be adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions as it can be conducted on the web and face-to-face following safety protocols. Furthermore, the partnership is geographically spread so that local consultations can proceed without the need to travel interstate.

Survey data will be analyzed both quantitative and qualitatively. Quantitative data will be analyzed using Stata for Windows (version 11.0; StataCorp LP). Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize the data. Frequencies and proportions will be calculated. Qualitative data from open-ended text-based responses will be analyzed using a modified thematic analysis that involves an open coding technique [20].

For analysis of the qualitative data, an interpretive approach will be used in analyzing the feedback from each subsection of participants and strands (consultation, survey, and focused data collection). Analysis of the consultation what and how templates will take a combined deductive and inductive approach of thematic analysis with themes and research priorities contextualized by descriptive data with regard to involvement of people with disabilities and the nature of impairment groupings as recorded in the how template [21,22].

The analysis seeks not only to document people’s views but also to develop a deep understanding of the context in which these views have been formulated and the meanings underpinning their perspectives. A report of core findings from each strand will be prepared and shared across the consortium to verify the team’s interpretations. Thematic analysis and triangulation of findings across participant groups will be prepared, and this will form the basis of the phase 3 agenda-setting.

The main output of the consultation phase will be a consultation report that describes in detail the methodology, number of people engaged with through the process, and thematic results of the consultation. Consultation results will be produced in accessible formats, including Australian Sign Language and easy English, as well as ensuring screen reader accessibility. Additional accessibility needs will be met as requested.

This phase will present to the National Disability Research Partnership, a policy- and practice-relevant research agenda. The agenda will bring together the priorities identified from each phase of the project. It will provide commentary on the evidence supporting the inclusion of each identified research priority, its utility for progressing policy and practice, advancing rights and enabling the flourishing of people with disability.

The third phase is informed by the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership methodology [23,24]. This is a detailed cocreation methodology used internationally since 2004 to set research agendas in an equal partnership between lay people, people affected by health conditions, and support people and professionals.

Phase 3 will involve consolidating the evidence from phases 1 and 2 using thematic consolidation and a comparison of findings to create overarching research themes that have been disproportionately underresearched or not researched at all in the Australian context in the past 10 years; of where publications do exist, but where findings have not been communicated or translated for use at the system, community, or individual level (evidence-practice gap); that are considered priorities for future research by nonresearchers including people with disability.

The themes, which are yet to be identified, will be presented in a web-based survey to stakeholders, including representatives of those groups and individuals who took part in phase 2 consultations and those who indicated their interest in participating in phase 3. Purposive sampling for participants not represented through this opt-in process will be conducted through the consortium, NGOs, governments, and research networks. We aim for 500-1000 responses, which is feasible given the response rate for the phase 2 survey that was completed by almost 1000 respondents. The survey will focus on high-level research themes and ask respondents to rank and comment on the importance and applicability of these themes from the following perspectives:

Survey responses will be analyzed using the same quantitative and qualitative data analysis processes used for the phase 2 survey to produce the disability research agenda.

The main output of this final phase will be a report on identifying the research agenda themes.

People with lived experience of disability and their supporters and allies will be involved in all phases of the project, from the beginning of the development of the tender documents and research plan. The research question underpinning this project concerns what should be prioritized in disability research in Australia. This question was developed by the National Disability Research Partnership, which includes people with disabilities. Within this project consortium, the strategies for data collection, analysis, and dissemination have all been developed in partnership with people with disabilities, including core project team members with disabilities, family members, and supporters.

This project necessitates an enhanced ethical review because of the potential vulnerability of the participants. The coproduction of all aspects of data collection is an important part of the ethical approach. Ethics approval was obtained for the phase 2 survey and other consultation processes from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2021/175, 2021/318, 2021/443). The phase 3 survey is currently under ethical consideration. All participants in the research will be requested to provide written consent to participate in the interviews and focus groups. For surveys, consent will be obtained by acknowledgment of reading the participant information sheet and submission of the survey. Only full survey data (where the participant has fully completed and submitted the survey) will be used. For individuals (eg, children and people with very complex intellectual disability) who do not have the legal ability to fully consent for themselves, their guardians will be requested to provide consent, but we will also ask for consent from the participants themselves.